Understanding the Trinity

[jenna]

Great conversation all.

Jenna,

I do hope you continue in this thread. You can learn a lot.

i appreciate that Rick, but i really dont see much of a point in continuing this. all i am getting is questions that i answer, but when i ask someone something, their response is either "go look it up" or they dont address my points at all, they merely ask another question. or they answer my question with a question. even giving such statements as polytheism is atheism.

Jenna,

I'm trying to teach you how to fish. We need to study this stuff on our own, and not just be spoon fed answers. The Galatian Heresy is being saved by grace, but then continuing to try to remain saved by works.

Besides my telling you to google Galatian Heresy, I think all of your points were addressed.

And yes, polytheism is atheism. I've never thought about it that way before, but Jac is correct. See, I'm learning too.

I'm glad you're asking questions, and being open to learning. It shows openness and maturity.

Jac is correct, but only in some small sense. i mean, polytheism is the belief in many gods. atheism is belief in no god(s). but since there is only one God, polytheism is false. but try telling that to someone who is polytheistic. but my response wasnt directed to you specifically anyway. so anyway...

[Jac3510]

So does this mean you aren't going to tell me what, for you, differentiates two apples, two humans, and two angels? You said no one is answering your arguments. I'm trying to do so. Or would you rather me assume what you believe and put words in your mouth?

[jenna]

So does this mean you aren't going to tell me what, for you, differentiates two apples, two humans, and two angels? You said no one is answering your arguments. I'm trying to do so. Or would you rather me assume what you believe and put words in your mouth?

how is this answering anything? it is merely another question you have, as opposed to an answer. but very well. you have to apples. they are both apples. as apples they are equal in every way. but they are still two separate apples. the same goes for the humans and for the angels. As for God and Christ, they are both God. as God they are both equal in every way. But they are still 2 separate beings. it would be like comparing my mother and me. as humans, we are both equal, but on the level of mother and daughter, she is my superior.

[jenna]

It seems to me that the issue with Jenna is that she is a bitarian, so the issue is the HS and not Christ.

nope. i do not believe there are 2 gods. just one God.

Yes, Binitarian:

Binitarianism is a Christian theology of two persons, personas, or two aspects in one substance/Divinity (or God). Classically, binitarianism is understood as a form of monotheism — that is, that God is absolutely one being; and yet with binitarianism there is a "twoness" in God, which means one God family.

Actually, Paul, I'd prefer her be a binitarian. Actually, she needs to see that her position necessarily entails polytheism. Her particular version of polytheism is social polytheism -- where there is no "God" per se but a conglomerate of beings who together may be considered "god." And that's why polytheism is just atheism.

was reading this, and this is actually very irrational. i mean, if you are to compare a family, which is more than one being in it, but together may be considered a family. in your line of thinking, there are no families, when compared to your analogy.

[crochet1949]

So does this mean you aren't going to tell me what, for you, differentiates two apples, two humans, and two angels? You said no one is answering your arguments. I'm trying to do so. Or would you rather me assume what you believe and put words in your mouth?

I've been following the discussion about the Trinity -- but I don't understand your ' differentiates two apples, two humans, and two angels'. I don't see the relevance.

Scripture teaches the role of the Father And the Son of God And the Holy Spirit.
All three person's of the Godhead had a part in providing salvation for mankind. It's been compared to an egg / the shell contains the yoke and egg white and it Also keeps all of it together.

Genesis tells us that 'In the beginning, God created -- later on it uses "Us' which is the first indication of parts Of the Godhead.

The function of the Son of God was to bridge the gap between mankind and God -- the gap created by Eve by eating of that fruit in the Garden. God and Adam and Eve had fellowship in the Garden of Eden. That fellowship was broken and the bridge has been the cross -- shedding the blood of Jesus Christ for our sins. And the role of the Holy Spirit part of the Godhead is multi-fold ...to convict sinners .. to come to indwell each believer at the moment of their salvation / the sealing power of the Holy Spirit .... give guidance ...inner peace, etc.

The post by PaulSacremento -- he listed all those passages -- covers this, also.

And, there's nothing logical about any of this. Logically Mary should never have become pregnant except by Joseph. Nothing logical about a virgin getting pregnant and having a child. A better way of stating it -- it's not humanly possible.
A person dying and coming back to life on their own isn't possible , either. It's strictly a God 'thing'. And I'm so very thankful that it IS.

And another role of the Holy Spirit was to come upon Mary so that she could conceive the Christ child.

[Jac3510]

So does this mean you aren't going to tell me what, for you, differentiates two apples, two humans, and two angels? You said no one is answering your arguments. I'm trying to do so. Or would you rather me assume what you believe and put words in your mouth?

how is this answering anything? it is merely another question you have, as opposed to an answer. but very well. you have to apples. they are both apples. as apples they are equal in every way. but they are still two separate apples. the same goes for the humans and for the angels. As for God and Christ, they are both God. as God they are both equal in every way. But they are still 2 separate beings. it would be like comparing my mother and me. as humans, we are both equal, but on the level of mother and daughter, she is my superior.

It's not an answer. I need you to answer it so that I can answer your questions to me. I mentioned the idea of a principle of individuation earlier and you simply ignored or chose not to respond. So I could invent a principle of individuation for you or I could ask what yours is so that we could make sure we're talking about the same thing.

Now, you say (rightly, in my view) that "they are both apples." In other words, they are the same kind of thing, right? If I had asked you about an apple and a rock, what makes them different, you wouldn't have said, "they are both x's." It appears you would have said, "Well, one's an apple and one's a rock!" and then perhaps enumerated some of the things that make them different. A rock, for example, is made of sediment and an apple isn't. An apple is food, a rock isn't. In other words, the rock and the apple are not "equal in every way."

So we're in agreement so far. Then you say, "but they are still two separate apples." That's what I'm looking for clarification from you on. I'm glad that you grant that they are two instances of the same kind of thing. That's great and helpful. But what makes them different? I think we're going to answer the same, but I'm trying not to put words in your mouth. You say, "they are still two separate apples." It sounds to me like you are appealing to the fact that this is one instantation of "apple" and that's another instantiation of "apple," and the way we know this one from that one is that they are different matter, different bodies, if you will. Whereas a rock and an apple are of a different nature, the two apples share a common nature (the same kind of thing), but their bodies, their matter, the physical stuff they are made of, that's what makes them different.

Is that what you're saying?

I'm asking you all this because when you say that both the Father and the Son are God even though they are different beings, whether you know it or not, you are appealing to a principle of differentiation. My concern is that you've not thought this through very clearly and that, ultimately, your principle is going to fail you. But we have to work through that to see if that's the case.

---------------------------

Actually, Paul, I'd prefer her be a binitarian. Actually, she needs to see that her position necessarily entails polytheism. Her particular version of polytheism is social polytheism -- where there is no "God" per se but a conglomerate of beings who together may be considered "god." And that's why polytheism is just atheism.

was reading this, and this is actually very irrational. i mean, if you are to compare a family, which is more than one being in it, but together may be considered a family. in your line of thinking, there are no families, when compared to your analogy.

Then I think you've misunderstood the analogy. A family is a group of (say) humans. Each human shares a common nature--that of a human! They are all the same kind of thing. Me, my wife, and both of my two daughters are all the same kind of thing: human beings. Some people consider their pets to be "a part of the family" (I say so about my two dogs), but that's really an analogy itself. My dogs are members of my family in a sense somehow comparable to the way my wife and kids are my family members. But even in that case, the major point I'm driving at remains: in a family, you have members that are the same kind of thing but are not, in fact, the same thing. My wife and I are both humans, but we are not each other. I am not her, and she is not me. We share a common nature, but we are individual examples of that nature. So that gets back to my point above about a principle of individuation. What is it that makes my wife and I both humans (the same kind of thing) but different individuals? Per your answer, I think (and I think the correct one), I am this particular instantation of the nature and she is another instantiation of the nature, and we see that in our respective bodies. I am this particular human being and she is that particular human being.

That, though, is going to create problems for you, I think, when you start talking about Jesus and the Father both being God. I think what's going to happen is that you're going to end up being forced to say that they share a common nature (divinity), so they are the same kind of thing in the same way my wife and I are the same kind of thing, but that they are individuated. But by what? What is the principle of individuation there? Again, I'm not going to put words in your mouth, and that's why I asked you the question. I'm hoping you'll continue to explore this with me.

[Jac3510]

I've been following the discussion about the Trinity -- but I don't understand your ' differentiates two apples, two humans, and two angels'. I don't see the relevance.

I hope the above helps, and if the discussion continues, I'm sure it will become clearer still.

Scripture teaches the role of the Father And the Son of God And the Holy Spirit.
All three person's of the Godhead had a part in providing salvation for mankind. It's been compared to an egg / the shell contains the yoke and egg white and it Also keeps all of it together.

Genesis tells us that 'In the beginning, God created -- later on it uses "Us' which is the first indication of parts Of the Godhead.

The function of the Son of God was to bridge the gap between mankind and God -- the gap created by Eve by eating of that fruit in the Garden. God and Adam and Eve had fellowship in the Garden of Eden. That fellowship was broken and the bridge has been the cross -- shedding the blood of Jesus Christ for our sins. And the role of the Holy Spirit part of the Godhead is multi-fold ...to convict sinners .. to come to indwell each believer at the moment of their salvation / the sealing power of the Holy Spirit .... give guidance ...inner peace, etc.

The post by PaulSacremento -- he listed all those passages -- covers this, also.

No one doubts any of this.

And, there's nothing logical about any of this. Logically Mary should never have become pregnant except by Joseph. Nothing logical about a virgin getting pregnant and having a child. A better way of stating it -- it's not humanly possible.

But I strongly disagree with this. You may, of course, rightly say that "it's not humanly possible," but I would strongly advise you not to say it isn't logical. There's nothing not logical about a virgin conceiving. I mean, forget God entirely--modern medicine could inseminate a virgin. There's nothing illogical about it. To say something is not logical is to say that the ideas in the idea are mutually contradictory. So a square circle is not logical. Or if I want to drive from New York to California, it would be illogical to drive due north. But a virgin conceiving or God being three in one? No, there's nothing illogical (or not logical) about that.

A person dying and coming back to life on their own isn't possible , either. It's strictly a God 'thing'. And I'm so very thankful that it IS.

Again, I know you're using your language a little loosely, but I think it's important in this conversation to choose our words carefully. Why are things not possible? Is it simply because we don't have the means to make it happen or because it cannot happen in principle? For instance, I cannot bench press four hundred pounds, but I know people who can. So it isn't possible for me to do so, but it is for them. On the other hand, it isn't possible for me or anyone else--God included--to draw a square circle. I hope you see the reference to the point about what is logical just above. So there's nothing illogical or even impossible about a dead person coming back to life--not in the logical sense. In the practical sense (the same sense in which I can't lift four hundred pounds) it certainly is impossible, and that's why we appeal to God.

My worry for jenna is that she is saying something that is logically impossible, like a square circle.

And another role of the Holy Spirit was to come upon Mary so that she could conceive the Christ child.

Again, that's fine. No one claims otherwise.

[jenna]

ok, Jac, i did not want to re-post your earlier comment, for your sake so you would not have to scroll for my answer. what exactly do you mean by individuation? and i read your response to Crochet above. how is my belief logically impossible? especially when it is possible for the human family to be called "one" but still have more than one member? the God family is no different

[Kurieuo]

@Jenna, I applaud you and know no one here is trying to attack you. It is good to discuss doctrine, if only the church did this. Like RickD, I've learnt something from your exchange with Jac also.

so, if i am reading this correctly, then what you are saying is that God has no parts? that He cannot give us the HS, since it is not a part of Him to give? if this is true, then what do we receive when we repent and are baptized? do you think that we are "possessed" by God, and that He (His entire being) comes into us when we receive the HS?

what exactly do you mean by individuation? and i read your response to Crochet above. how is my belief logically impossible? especially when it is possible for the human family to be called "one" but still have more than one member? the God family is no different

Consider God's nature, it is immaterial right? But, what does this mean?

I realised, some time ago, that if I'm logically consistent it means there is no "material" substance. To say there is a substance of some sort, a material essence, even if such material is ethereal, is logically incoherent. It's like saying "immaterial material".

As physical beings, we seem incapable of accepting an "immaterial" world, and as such, even a truly immaterial God.In movies and in our minds, we tend to represent "spirits" as being of some ethereal material. Casper the ghost, well, he is presented as a cute rounded little boy in a translucent ethereal form that we see (which is actually invisible to all, unless for some reason he becomes revealed as a visible translucent "substance" to some).

Physicalism has just been so engrained in our minds, it's so much a part of us and our lives, that we even want to overlay a "material" of sorts to the spiritual world -- it allows us to conceive of such in some manner we understand. Rather than just thinking of such in terms of raw consciousness without any visible substance. Consciousness upon substance, rather than what I see as more correct which is substance upon consciousness. Isn't a material physicalist model what we are all educated into?

Consider, if God is immaterial, then as physical beings it is incoherent for us to "picture" God's nature as some divine substance. Therefore, I say, we must reject any view which portrays God's nature as "having" some substance. God just is Existing, raw Being without any kind of material.

[Jac3510]

K posted before I finished my reply -- he is exactly correct and said much of the same thing I did in fewer words. I hope his words will bring some light to my own:

--------------------------------------------

ok, Jac, i did not want to re-post your earlier comment, for your sake so you would not have to scroll for my answer. what exactly do you mean by individuation? and i read your response to Crochet above. how is my belief logically impossible? especially when it is possible for the human family to be called "one" but still have more than one member? the God family is no different

I think it is different with God. So, by "individuation" I mean "that which makes something a distinct individual." Again, let's take apples as our example. I can have one apple or three hundred apples. What I never have is just "apple." I always have an apple (however many "ans" is beside the point). So what makes this one this apple and that one that apple? The philosophical way of asking that is, "What is the principle of individuation?"

The philosophical way of answering that is, "Matter is the principle of individual for material things." In other words, this apple is this one precisely becaue it is made up of this bit of matter, and that apple is that one precisely because it is made up of that bit of matter. So the bit of matter is the principle of individuation. It isn't the fact that both are apples that makes them different. It's the fact that this apple is made up of this bit of matter and that apple is made up of that bit of matter.

If you agree with that, you'll quickly be able to see that is true for all material things of the same kind. Two apples, two birds, to humans, two dogs, whatever. Of course, if two things are a different kind of thing, then what makes them different things is less their matter and more their nature. An apple and a dog are, in fact, made up of different bits of matter. But what makes them different is what they are. The matter of the apple is arranged this way and has these properties because it is an apple; the matter of the apple is arranged that way and has those properties because it is a dog.

All of that is pretty easy when we are considering material things--rocks, trees, stars, photons, dogs, apples, oranges, humans, atoms, whatever. But when we start thinking about immaterial things, then the story changes.

Let's go back to our trusty apple again. Don't think about a particular apple. Try, if you can, to just think about the general concept of "apple." That is, think about the essence or nature of apples. Now think about another general concept of "apple" that is identical to your first concept in absolutely every single way, such that there is literally no way to distinguish between this concept of apple and that concept of apple. Here's my question: do you have two concepts or are the two really just the same concept?

My assumption is that you'll agree that you don't really have two concepts at all. The only way I can think of to make those "two" concepts to really be distinct is to say that at one moment I was thinking about this concept and at a later moment I was thinking about another, discrete, though identical concept. Here, what differentiates the two concepts from each other is the fact is when they were thought about, but that's probably stretching it. The fact is, "two" concepts that are identical in absolutely every single way whatsoever are, in fact, just the same concept. If you want to distinguish two concepts, you have to show how one is different from the other. So the concept of a green apple really is different from the concept of a red one.

What that shows us is that, when dealing with non-material things, the principle of individuation isn't matter. And that seems obvious in retrospect because, after all, immaterial things aren't material, so they have no matter to individuate them! And if they aren't individuated by matter, then the matter can't distinguish them. No, when dealing with immaterial realities, the principle of individuation is the essence or nature itself.

So suppose I have two real apples. Both have one common nature--one real essence--between them: their "appleness" you might say. What differentiates these two, what individuates them, is their matter. But the essence, the concept, the nature itself, is immaterial. So what individuates that nature is just the nature or essence itself.

I hope the application to God is obvious. If God is Spirit, if He is immaterial, then what individuates Him cannot be matter. God doesn't have a body like apples do. But jenna, this is the problem I'm trying to get you to address for me. If isn't a material thing, then what individuates the one and the other so that they can be, as you said, two different beings? If God is immaterial, then we can only differentiate at the level of nature or essence and not at the level of matter. But if two different things have different natures, then they aren't just different things but different kinds of things!. But then you have two different kinds of Gods! But that's why your family analogy is impossible. I am the same kind of thing as my wife: we're both human. But if the Father and the Son are the same kind of thing, then they both share in the same divine nature (like my wife and I share in the same human nature); but whereas material things (like my wife and I) that share in a common nature can be individuated and so distinguished by our bodies, God isn't material. So what is there to distinguish the Father from the Son? You're left with the problem of two identical concepts. It turns out, that there is only one God after all! They aren't two beings. They are just one being.

The upshot is that, if you insist that there really are two distinct beings, then you are saying either:

1. One has the divine nature and so is God and the other is not; or
2. Both share in a common nature and are thus individuated materially (which would make both of these beings material creatures and thus not God); or
3. Neither has the divine nature and so neither is God.

Those are your only possibilities if you are going to insist that the Father is God and the Son is God but that both are distinct beings. That's why I told Nessa before, classical Christianity--the Trinity properly taught--does not and has never said that God is three beings. Given all of the above--and the reasoning above IS the very reasonsing the church used--they've always said that God is exactly ONE being, not three (and even more nuanced, God is Being Itself, and not A being at all; such that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all each Being Itself).

[Philip]

And yes, polytheism is atheism.

Positionally, yes, as it is no different to believe in a god or gods that do not exist, and to believe NO God or gods exist. As they both equate to believing in nothing, even though they might THINK such a false god or gods exist.

[jenna]

Jac, you are assuming, if i am following you correctly, that God is immaterial, is that correct? if i am to continue, i would like an answer to this, either yes or no. if i am not following you, please tell me where i am wrong in my thinking of what you are saying.

[Jac3510]

Short answer, yes.

As obvious an assumption as that is, though, even that is the necessarily conclusion of a more basic assumption, which is this: God is 1) Creator of this world; and 2) is not contingent on us for His existence. Those--what a philosopher named Alvin Plantinga called the Sovereignty-Aseity Intuition--are my really fundamental assumptions about God.

[jenna]

Short answer, yes.

As obvious an assumption as that is, though, even that is the necessarily conclusion of a more basic assumption, which is this: God is 1) Creator of this world; and 2) is not contingent on us for His existence. Those--what a philosopher named Alvin Plantinga called the Sovereignty-Aseity Intuition--are my really fundamental assumptions about God.

ok. while i agree that God is the creator of this world, and is not contingent on us for His existance, i have to disagree that He is immaterial. He has features just like we do. He has feet, hands, a backside, and a face. Although no human has ever seen Him, that is merely because no one can look upon His face and live. All the above things are described in the bible as features that God has. so one cannot say He is immaterial, simply because no one can look at Him. Moses was in His presence, and the mere closeness of proximity to God caused Moses's hair to turn white, and his face to shine. can you imagine the reaction if Moses had actually seen the full image?

[RickD]

Short answer, yes.

As obvious an assumption as that is, though, even that is the necessarily conclusion of a more basic assumption, which is this: God is 1) Creator of this world; and 2) is not contingent on us for His existence. Those--what a philosopher named Alvin Plantinga called the Sovereignty-Aseity Intuition--are my really fundamental assumptions about God.

ok. while i agree that God is the creator of this world, and is not contingent on us for His existance, i have to disagree that He is immaterial. He has features just like we do. He has feet, hands, a backside, and a face. Although no human has ever seen Him, that is merely because no one can look upon His face and live. All the above things are described in the bible as features that God has. so one cannot say He is immaterial, simply because no one can look at Him. Moses was in His presence, and the mere closeness of proximity to God caused Moses's hair to turn white, and his face to shine. can you imagine the reaction if Moses had actually seen the full image?

Anthropomorphism